A bad lawyer can achieve results under perfect conditions. A mediocre lawyer can triumph under good conditions. My kind of lawyer can realize justice under the worst conditions - conditions featuring judicial corruption such as the procedural magic Simpson describes in Regina v. Dudley and Stephens.

The manner in which the just court doctors the record to obtain a conviction is an example of naked, unbridled power. Although less visible in "democratic" countries such as ours, this example of corruption occurs frequently in other parts of the world.

The class of lawyer I contemplate must have the capacity to win at the uneven game. But how can one carry the day when the deck is staked against her and in favor of power? It seems that she must have her own bag of tricks/power to counterbalance the corruption. This seems unethical to me. I feel compelled to ascribe a value judgment to the "bag of tricks" concept since I consider myself a functionalist. Things are what they do - right? If so, using strategies/power to trick people seems inherently dishonest – hence – unethical.

Thus, to excel in a corrupt system, one must at least understand corruption. Does it also follow that one must become corrupted?

Disclaimer: Although this post was penned at 2:53 am it was NOT written under conditions of sleep deprivation.

-- CrystalVenning - 13 Apr 2012